
Glass TK 10 6^ 

Book SJi— 



LETTER 



OF THE 



HON 



R, B. RHETT, 



TO T H E 



EDITORS OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER 



ON THE 



RIGHT OF DEBATE IN CONGRESS 




WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE. 
1841. 



SStf^Vflii 









*'^"-- * 



LETTER 



House of Representatives, 
Aagust 25, 1841. 
Messrs. Blair and Rives: 

Gentlemen: As the Editors of the National In- 
telligencer refuse to pubii-h the enclosed commu- 
nication, you will oblige me by giving it an inser- 
tion in your columns. 

Your obedient servant, 

R. B. RHETT. 

To the Editors of the National Intelligencer: 

Gentlemen: la your report of the proceedings 
of the House of Saturday last, the 21st insU after 
recording the grounds on* which I asked to be ex- 
cused from voting on the resolution offered by Mr. 
Sergeant, proposing to take the Bank bill out of 
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, "on Monday next," you state: 

"After Mr, Rhett had read Iris protest to the resolution, and 
requested that it be entered upon the record — 

"Mr. Davis of Kentucky rose and asked him if he had not 
voted -for a similar resolution to the one under consideration 
during the first session of the last Congress] 

'•[Mr. Rhett replied: No, never!] 

' ; Mr. Davis rejoined: he would then read the-record upon 
Mr. Rhett; but objection being made, Mr. D. was not allowed 
£0 do so. It is as follows: 

" 'A motion was made by Mr. Clifford that the rules in rela- 
tion to the order of business be suspended, to enable him to 
move the following resolution: Resolved. That the rules of the 
House be so far suspended that the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union be discharged from the consi- 
deration of Senate bill (No. 127) entitled ( A bill to provide for 
the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the 
public revenue,'* from and after Monday next, unless the same 
shall be reported at earlier day: and that said bill, wi 
amendments, it any, as shall have been adopted, be taken, up 
in the House on Tuesday next, at 10 o'clock, a. m. and be the 
special order until finally disposed of. reserving to said com- 
mittee the right, according to the rules of the House, to report 
the same sooner, if the discussion shall terminate.' The ques- 
tion was put on Mr. Clifford's motion to suspend: Yeas 126, 
nays 54. Among the yeas were Mr. Rhett and every Demo- 
crat in the House. Upon the question that the House do 
agree to Mr. Clifford's resolution: Yeas 124, nays 56.— 
Among the yeas were Mr. Rhett an** every Democrat in the 
House." 

Thus, gentlemen, it appears that when you pro- 
fess to report the proceedings of the House, you 
hold yourselves at liberty to intersperse them with 
matters •» hi :;i do not occur at the time in the 
House. The former opinions or conduct of those 
opposed to yoa politically, mar be introduced for 
the purpose of weakening their positions, or even 
for a far inferior purpose — to lower them j.erson- 
ally in public estimation, by an effort to convict 
them of personal inconsistency. If you had thought 
proper to report only what wa? said on this occa- 
sion, you rmght have better represented my reply 
to Mr. Stanly, or have noticed my request to the 
House to allow Mr Datis to proceed. If the re- 
solution had been read by Mr. Davis, it would 
have given me the opportunity I desired, of show- 



ing what I asserted — that I had never voted tor any- 
such resolution as that against which I protested. 
Since you have ihought proper virtually to make 
this charge in your report of the proceedings of the 
House, I claim the privilege through your co- 
lumns of refuting it. 

In the first place, you have not quoted the whole 
journal. You say: "The question was put upon 
Mr. Clifford's motion to suspend the rules." 
You should have added: " Two-thirds voting in the 
affirmative, tbe rules were suspended." From the 
point at which you stop, it may be inferred by a 
reader unacquainted with parliamentary rules, 
that a mere majority suspended the rules; and, 
therefore, in this respect, that the resolutions of Mr. 
Clifford and Mr, Sergeant were alike, This is 
not so. A rule of the House, in conformity with 
an express standing rale, existing immemorialiy, I 
believe, can only be suspended by a vote of two- 
thirds; and on this occasion this vote was ob- 
tained. 

In the second place, you say: "Amongst the yeas 
were Mr. Rhett and every Democrat in the 
House." An inference from this statement might 
be made, that Democrats only voted for Mr. Clif- 
| foud's motion to suspend the rules, and afterwards 
for his resolution: and that they carried those pro- 
S positions. This is not so. A large number of the 
, without whom neither the motion nor reso- 
j ration could havo been carried, voted for them with 
! the Democrats. Amongst them were Mr. Biddle 
! of Pennsylvania, Mr. BaiGGS and Mr. Calhoun of 
i Massachusetts, Mr. Underwood of Kentucky, Mr. 
' Chins of Louisiana, Mr. Joseph Williams of 
ssee, Mr, Randolph of New Jersey, and 
many others. If the motion or resolution had. 
been contrary to' parliamentary usage, or an in- 
fringement of the rights of the minority, these gen- 
tlemen would have been amongst tbe last who 
would have voted for, or carried them. 

The distinction between this resolution, and the 
resolution of Mr. Sergeant against which I pro- 
tested — kept out of view in your report — is this: 
The resolution of Mr. Clifford was a resolution 
io suspend the rules, which can only be carried by a 
vote of two-thirds of the House. Mr. Sergeant's 
resoluuon was not o( this character. By a stand- 
ing rule of the House, made for the protection of 
the minority, as all rules are, and always existing 
as a rule of Congress, the regulpr course of busi- 
ness cannot be altered or changsd but by a suspen- 
sion of the rules. This regulation was made ex- 
pressly to protect the minority against the caprice 
or tyranny of the majority. It' was supposed, with 
this guard to their rights, requiring a co-operatitm 
of the minority itself to suspend or change the 



Tules by a vote of two-thirds, their rights were 
safe — imposition or oppression by a majority was 
impossible. 

But how is it now with the new rule intro- 
duced at this session, for the first time, into Con- 
gress; and in pursuance of which, the resolution 
proposed last Saturday was passed? Was it a 
resolution to suspend the rule?, requiring the assent 
of the minority, by a vote of two-thirds, to make it 
operative? It was a simple resolution— '-'Thar, at 
4 o'clock this day, (altered afterwards to Monday 
next,) all debate in Committee of the Who!e on 
the bill No. 1, to incorporate the subscribers to the 
Fiscal Bank of the United States, shall cease," &c. 
It was an enforcement of a rule which had been 
made a standing rule of the House, expressly or- 
dained by the majority, to get rid of the inconve- 
nience of the two-thirds hitherto required 10 suspend 
the rules, and empowering a mere majority to stop 
debate at any time in the Committee of the Whole, 
and force a bill ihrough the House by the aid of 
the previous question. It was against this new 
and tyrannical rule, which was ordained expressly 
for ihs purpose of putting aside the ancient rule, 
in conformity to which, Mr. Clifford's resolution 
was offered last session, wish my concur- 
rence and support, that I spoke and pro- 
tested. Kow, then, can it' be said, with 
any propriety, that these resolutions are in any 
sense the same — when one was for a suspension of 
the rules, the other was to enforce a rule existing; 
one required a vote of two-lhirds of the members 
to carry it, the other a mere majority; one, in fact, 
was made to defeat the operatiem of the other, and 
to overthrow that protection to the minority the 
other secured? On the great point to which we ob- 
jected, the two resolutions, instead of being simi- 
lar, are in reality antagonistical. 

And look, too, gentlemen, to the circumstance? 
tinder which these resolutions were introduced, 
containing, as they do, a most vivid exemplifica- 
tion of their operation and principles. The Inde- 
pendent Treasury bill — for the purpose of drawing 
which out of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Clifford introduced his resolution to suspend the 
rules — had been under debate one monih and five 
days, consecutively; and the resolution proposed to 
allow three more days for continued debate.* Scores 
of speeches had been delivered on it; and, by a 
computation made by a member then on the 
floor, two- thirds of the time taken up in 
the debate had been consumed by the 
minority opposed to the bill. It war, this 
fair scope for tree debate — the ample time and li- 
beral indulgence given to the minority to express 
their opinions, that doubtless influenced those mem- 
bers of it who joined the majority, in suspending 
the rules, to bring the debate to a close." Now, 
turn to the circumstances under which the resolu- 
tion on the Fiscal Bank bill was introduced last 
Saturday. The amendment, which was the bill on 
which we were to vote, containing' thirty-eight 
p8ges, had been introduced into the House but the 
day before, not after examination by a committee 
of the House, but by a member, on his individual 
information and responsibility. The bill, yet wet 
from the press, is on our tables; and it is grave! 1 
proposed to lake it out of the Committee of the 



Whole at four o'clock that day, and pass it. The 
excrement this proposition obviously produced 
in the House, induced the mover, I presume, 
as a signal specimen of Whig generosity, to give 
one day longer; and he changed the time to 
four o'clock on the Monday enduing. The Inde- 
pendent Treasury bill, contained a very trifling ap- 
propriation of money for erecting safes, vaults, 
&c ; but this bill established a mighty corporation, 
and contained an appropriation of fifteen millions 
of dollars. And mark how beneficial to the mi- 
nority was the few hours allotted for discussing 
this gigantic measure, striking at the first principles 
of the Constitution, and penetrating every corner 
of the land. Not a Democrat was able to utter 
one word iu the debate — not one could obtain the 
floor. The whole debate, short as it was, and 
worthless as was the opportunity, fell entirely from 
the lips of the majority. Who will say, under 
such circumstances, even if the piinciples on which 
both rested were the same, that those who voted 
for Mr. Clifford's resolution, stand on the same 
platform with those who voted for the resolution 
of Saturday? Practically, under the former reso- 
lution, there was free, almost licentious debate. 
Under the latter, practically, there was an effectual 
gag to the minority. Nsither in operation, cir- 
cumstances, nor principle, then, can they, with any 
propriety, be said to be the same. Under the rule 
adopted by this Congress, the ancient security en- 
joyed by a minority to the right of free debate in 
Committee of the Whole, is taken away. They 
have no rights in the matter. They speak but by 
the permission of a majority: and permission, gives 
no right. When a majority, even of one only, per- 
mits, they may speak; and when it orders otherwise, 
they must bedunib. The enforcement of this rule in 
this case demonstrates, that if a majority chooses, 
they rnny pass any measure through the House 
of Representatives, without one word of debate be- 
ing uttered concerning it. It allowed but six days, 
(and it may. as well, on jo great a measure, have 
allowed not one,) to discuss the Distribution bill, 
which had never before been considered in the 
House, and which disposed of hundreds of millions 
of the people's property. It alowed but five days 
tor the consideration of the Lean bill, borrowing 
twelve millions of dollars more. It allowed but one 
week for the despatch of the first Bank bill, sent us 
by the Senate, where it was centered one month. 
If such legislation was consistent with our form of 
Government, it would be sufficient to turn away 
all nations from us in disgust and contempt. 
Against such legislation we have remonstrated. 
Against such tyranny by a mpjority, as one of the 
minority, 1 have protested. 

Iu one of ihe grounds of the protest I made 
against this rule, I maintained, that it "was a right 
in the people of the United States, inherited 
from their ancestors, and enjoyed and practised 
time immemorial, to speak through their Re- 
presentatives to the taxes imposed upon them." 
The manner in which this right was en- 
joyed, was, by referring all bills, laying taxes or ap- 
propriating money, to the Committee of the Whole 
House; that is, the whole House resolves itself 
into a committee. The advantage is in the pri- 
vileges of this committee. There, the previous 



question (the form of cutting of all farther debate) 
does not apply. A free conference takes place, 
and debate is unlimited and unrestricted. On the 
great and vital subject of taxes, and the appro- 
priation of them, it is not presumed that there can 
be too much deliberation or consideration; and 
those who are to pay the taxes, the people, have 
the right freely to discuss the manner and the ex- 
tent to which they sh&ll be laid, and the purposes 
to which they shall be applied. Permit me brlflly 
to show the origin and nature of this great principle 
of Anglo American liberty. 

On the 18h of February, 1667, coeval with the 
establishment of liberty in- England by the Revo- 
lution of 1663, by which James the Second was 
expelled from the throne, the Commons of Eng- 
land resolved: 

"'lhat if any motion be made in the House for any public 
aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate 
thereof ought not presently to be entered upon; but adjourned 
till such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint; 
and then it ought to be referred to the Committee of the Whole 
House; and their opinions be reported thereupon before any re- 
solution or vote of the House do pass therein." 

Upwards of a century afterwards, in 1784, 
Mr. Hatsell, in his Parliamentary Precedents, in 
commenting on this rule, observes: 

•' The House of Commons have, with great wisdom, impos- 
ed these rules and reartutions upon themselves in the exer- 
cise of that great and important privilege, 'the sole and exclu- 
sive right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown;" in or- 
der, as it is their duty when they are imposing burdens upon 
their fellow subjects, to give every opportunity for free and 
frequent discussion,) that they may not, by sudden and hasty 
votes, incur expenses, or be induced to approve of measures 
which might entail heavy and lasting burdens upon themselves 
and their posterity. Tt is upon this principle, that as long ago 
as the year 1667, the House laid down for a rule 'that no motion 
or proposition for an aid or charge upon the people should be 
presently entered upon'— that by this means, due and 
sufficient notice of the subject should be given, and 
that jthe members should not be surprised into a 
tote, but might come prepared to suggest every ar- 
gument which the importance of the question may demand. 
Another part of the same order— 'that such propositions shall 
receive their first discussion in Committee of the Wholi 
House' — is no less wise and prudent. There every mem- 
ber may speak as often as he finds it necessary, and is not 
confined in delivering his opinions by those rules which 
are to be observed when speaking in the House; and which 
in matters of account and computation, would be ex 
tremely inconvenient, and would necessarily deprive 
the House of much real and useful information. This 
mode of proceeding likewise gives an opportunity of 
a lurther and more mature deliberation, when the resolu- 
tions of the committee are reported; to which the House may 
eiiher not only agree or disagree, but if they are of opinion 
that the subject has not been sufficiently canvassed, they may 
recommit the whole or any part of the report, for the purpose 
«>f receiving more accurate information, or more narrowly in- 
quiring into the nature and expediency of the proposed mea- 
sure. Foi these reasons, this resolution of the 18th bf Februa- 
ry, 1667,has been, particularly of late years, very strictly ad- 
hered to; and it appears to be one of those rules which, as it 
has its foundation in prudence, and an attention to the ease of 
the people, ought to be, in all instances, inviolably observed." 

Here is the origin of this great rule, with the 
reasons for its exereise and continuance in the 
British Parliament to the present day. And I beg 
you to remark, that instead of its being relaxed in 
its administration, it has been, according to the 
testimony of Mr. Hatsell, 'particularly of late years, 
very strictly adhered toS The reason is obvious. 
In proportion as the British Government has be- 
come more free, and the interests of the p-ople 
more regarded in i's legislation, in the same pro- 
portion has this great principle of parliamentary 
law, introduced by the people for their projection 
and s^lf government, be^nraore sacredly observed. 
It bas become sanctioned by usage and hallowed 



into a great principle of liberty; and if any Pre- 
mier or King of England, at the present day, 
should dare violate it to one half ihe extent this 
Congress has witnessed, it would produce a revo- 
lution as signal as tha* of 1668. Nor has it been 
confined alone to bills of supply. "The speech, 
messages, and others matters of great concernment 
are usually referred to the committee of th® whole 
House." 6 Grey, 311. There the inestimable pri- 
vilege of free debate is obtained, untrammelled 
by technical rules. There the representative of 
the people can speak to the taxes to be im- 
posed upon his constiiuenents again and 
again, unchecked by the previous question, 
Suggestions are freely made— time tor investiga- 
tions given, that all the light and information 
which the subject admits of, may be freely imparted 
and freely received. This is English parliamentary 
law,brought by our ancestors with them into all our 
colonial assemblies, as that rule, in the enactment 
of laws, above all others, the most sacred to liberty 
and protective of the rights of the people. It has 
been invariably practised on, as far as I am in- 
formed, by every State Legislature in the Union, 
excepting where the previous question bas not 
been adopted as a rule of governance, and then 
it may be unnecessary. It has been as inviota bly 
observed by every Congress which has sat in the 
United States, from the Revolution to the Congress 
of June, 1841. Even the Federalists of '98, disre- 
gardfulas they showed themselves to be of popular 
rights, in the enactment of the alien and sedition 
laws, whilst they assailed the freedom of the press, 
left untouched the right of free debate in Congress. 
The liberty of speech to the people and their repre- 
sentatives, was unsssailed or abridged'. For the first 
time since 1667, this rule has been set aside— aofc 
by Englishmen, or in a Monarchy — but in a Re- 
public, by the descendants of Englishmen, claim- 
ing to be freer than they, 

Free debate no longer exists in the House of 
Representatives of ths Congress of the United 
States. The people, through their Representatives, 
have no longer the right of speaking to the taxes 
imposed upon them. Tyranny, in the shape of a 
majority, is erected in the Capitol. The new reigsa 
of terror is begun. 

I have remarked, gentlemen, that whenever the 
guillotine, cutting off debate, has fallen on a bill, 
you have raised a shout of congratulation at J its 
speedy passage. The patriotism of the deed is 
extolled, and the people, are bid to rejoice. If yon 
have thought upon this subject, wilt you be so 
good as to inform me, how liberty can be maintain- 
ed by a people, if the liberty of speech, in their 
deliberative assemblies, is destroyed? Why did 
Cromwell turn his Parliament out ot doors? Was 
it not because he could not restrain their speech? 
Why did Napolean intreduce hi? gens doctrines into 
the House of Deputies? Was it not because he 
feared their remonstrances and appeals to the 
people, against his meditated usurpations? Could 
these tyrants have made the Representatives 
of the people dumb,— could they have si- 
'enced debate by rule, — what more could they have 
desired or demanded? For their purposes, per- 
haps, it were better such representatives fhoaid 
have remained than be expelled. They both hail 



6 



obsequious and slarish majorities to carry out 
aheir behests. But they, unfortunately, did not 
live in our day, in the glorious light of our ex- 
ample. They did not comprehend the first great 
reform of a Federal majority in the Congress 
of these United States, to gag by rule; and 
therefore, they found it necessary, to gag by the 
sword. And have j ou lived so long in the atmos 
phere of this Capitol as to suppose, so far as liber- 
ty is concerned, that the one form of suppressing 
debate, is less objectionable than the other, if equal- 
ly effective? Or do you imagine it to be possi- j 
ble, that if the one issubmi.te-d to, the other, so soon 
as it is convenient, will not be resorted to? How 
have all monarchies arisen from Republics'? Do you 
know — can you imagine, but two steps? First, the 
control of the majority; and, second, the silence 
and subjection of she minority. And can you con- 
ceive a more dexterous method of destroying a mi- 
nority, than by dcstrojing its use? If it is silent. 
what use is it? How can the abuses of a majority, or 
ihe designs of a tyrant against the liberties of the peo- 
ple, be exposed in a deliberative body, if the mino- 
rity is gauged? Is it the wont of a majority or an j 
ambitious pretender, to lay bare b.fore the J 
eyes of the people, the true character of their mea-j 
sures; or do they not rather seek to commend them, 
by all the arts and sophistries that mental ingenuity 
can devise? To do wrong is the great difficulty. 
To give it the appearance of right, with the pow- 
ers belonging to us, is easiay accomplished. To 
destroy or silence a minority in a popular repre- 
sentative Government, is to destroy liberty itself. 
Tne minority is the great check, the sole restraint 
on a majority; and if a majority is unrestrained. 
what is it tut a despotism? Can there be a better 
definition of a despotism, than unrestrained powei? 
And then, have you thought at all, in connec- 
tion with this subject, of the people, these members 
of Congress, composing the minority, represent? 
How come these men in the Capitol? They 
.stand, each of them, the embodied political 
power of fifty thousand people. la them 
selves, as men, they are comparatively nothing; 
but as representatives, they may wield a pow- 
er, "as terrible as an army with banners." 
When you silence them, you silence the people 
they represent. For what purpose were they sen! 
here? Was it net by speech, and speech orJy, to en- 
deavor to preserve the Constitution — to protect the 
people they represent from oppression and injus- 
tice, and promote equal liberty to all? Why should 
they stay, if speech is denied them? Why should 
the mockery of representation be preserved, when 
all its power, its vitality is destroyed? Why should 
the people send them, merely to subserve the pur- 
poses ot a majority, and give the air of authority to 
edicts which ihey are the dumb instruments of regis- 
tering? With such power in a majority, exercised 
as it has been, when not three months old, 
the very object of representation, is destroyed. The 
people represented by the minority, do not rule 
themselves. They are ruled absolutely, without 
the poor privilege of remonstrance or complaint 
through their representatives, against laws passed 
for their governance, in their opinion, unconstitu- 
tional in principle; and, if unrepealed, lata! to their 
liber ties. 



I have no doubt you have been astonished at the 
patience, with which the minority in Congre?s have 
submitted to this state of things. I tell you, it were 
easier to have deluged the Hall of Representa- 
tives in blood, than to have submitted to th s im- 
position. It was not impossible to have stopped ut- 
terly all legislation, until that rule was rescinded. 
But, after due deliberation, it was determined to 
submit, at least for the time; because, we believed, 
that the people would come to the rescue. We 
looked over the whole scope of the policy of the 
party in power — their tyrannical proceedings 
here — their unconstitutional and corrupt legisla- 
tion for the country— and we have n<*t doubted 
their speedy everthrow. Our policy, therefore, has 
been, with calmness and dignity to await the com- 
ing of the people — that p«ople, wh^se rights 
through us have been invaded ana insulted — to 
whom the Constitution and the Government be- 
longs — "whose we are, and whom we serve." 
Thee ae sufficient for themselves; «nd if they are 
not,- who can be sufficient for them? Who but the 
people, can make the peop'e free? 

Shouid people and Representatives both submit, 
to such legislation, it needs no prophet to foretell 
the consummation. Let no man aM>po? *, that good 
can result from the practice of evil, to tho$3 who 
practise it. The Almighty often scourges a nation 
for its offences; and he may permit the utmost cri- 
minality in the instrument of his chastisement, but 
in the end, the instrument and the chastised suffer 
both alike. Suppose the minority m Congress so 
debased as to submit entirely and forever to the 
tyranny of the majority, and the people they repre- 
sent, as abject as tbey, acquiesce in a mere nomi- 
nal representation, — mute, meek, slavish instru- 
ment > for recording the mandates of a majority^ 
hatched in whispers and engendered in caucus 
corners; — will the matter end there? Can a pure 
and free majority, (admitting them to be pure and 
free whilst practising oppresiion,) coexist with a 
debased minority? Will rut the corrupters, soon 
become corrupted — the enslavers, enslaved? Do you 
not see, that at every turn of public affairs, new 
parties are formed, or new combinations hom 
the old parties, created? And how long do you 
think a debased and corrupt minority, under 
the continual shifting of parties, will remain 
inferior? Do men depraved adhere to prin- 
ciple, and avid power? Will the.? not seize 
upon the differences of the majority to ele- 
vate themselves? And when the power of the 
State is in their hand?, how will it be — how must it 
necessarily be used? Self-respect, will be £.one. 
Respect and reverence for the people, will be gone. 
With the absence of representative responsibility, 
(destroyed, in the uselessness of representation,) all 
moral responsibility will be merged in numbers. 
The love of self, and the lust for power, will prevail. 
Combinations will be made to subserve the objects 
of individuals, ana mutual concessions, at the ex- 
pense of all principle, for mutual interests. Then, 
when the harvest of corruption is ripe, and univer- 
sal distrust exists amidst a general depravity, a 
Cromwell or a Caesar will be hailed as a deliverer. 
If every other maxim in Government shall fail, this 
shall remain for ever true — to be free ourselves, we 
must peimit others to be free. 



"If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'i were well 
It were done quickly." 

This is the motto, by which the majority in Con- 
gress, have driven ihrough their measures at the 
present session: but remember, these were the 
words of a murderer, who, whilst stealing to his 
fell purpose, could whimper — 
(i Thou sure and firm set earth 
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear 
The very stones prate of my whereabout." 
The Constitution may be murdered at this ses- 
sion — murdered in your Distribution bill — mur- 
dered in your Tariff bill — twice murdered in 
your Bank bills;— but the people may yet 
arise, "with twenty mortal murders on their 
crowns, and push us from our stools." He who 
thinks that by multiplying wrongs, resistance to 
them will be weakened — that by haste in execution, 
guilt can be disguised — has but the wretched 
morals, and poor policy, of a fearful rob- 
ber. In a mighty country like ours, whose 
step is the advance or retrogression of nations, 
whose every deed should look to the ages of futu- 
rity — to eternity itself, so far as this world is con- 
cerned, where they are to be finally developed in their 
consequences — to suppose that such a people, with 
such destinies, are to be caught in a trap of acci- 
dents, or tied up by the willow withs of precipitate 
legislation, or gagged by rules, is too ridiculous 
to be even contemptible, were it net, that all wicked- 
ness is to be pitied or despised. We are great — and 
to be made far greater — mightier than our thoughts 
can grasp, if true to our destinies, by weighing 
coolly and cautiously every act of legislation, by 
a faithful observance of the Constitution, and by 
holding ft st to every guarantee of liberty transmit- 
ted to us by our ancestors, or discovered in the 
course of our own experience. Oors will then be 
the greatness of justice, truth, and liberty, com- 
bined. 



The protest of Mr. Rhett, which he asked to be 
recorded on the journals of the House, and which 
the Speaker refused, as out of order, was as fol- 
lows: 

1. Because the rule by which the resolution is 
proposed, is a violation of the spirit of the Consti- 
tution of the United States, which declares that the 
freedom of speech and of the press shall not be 
abridged by any law of Congiess. 

2 Because it destroys the character of this body 
as a deliberative assembly: a right to deliberate 
and discuss measures b?ing no longer in Congress, 
but with the majority only. 

3. Because it is a violation of the rights of the 
people of the United States through their Repre- 
sentatives, inherited from iheir ancestors, and en- 
joyed and practised time immemorial, to speak to 
the taxes imposed upon them when taxes are im- 
posed. 

4. Because, by the said rule, a bill may be ta- 
ken up in Committee of the Whole, be immedi- 
ately reported to the House, and by the aid of the 
previous question, be passed into a law without 
one word of debate being permitted or uttered. 

5. Because free discussion of the laws by which 
the people are governed, is not only essential to 
right legislation, but is necessary to the preserva- 
tion of the Constitution and the liberties of the 
people; and to fear or suppress it is the characte- 
ristic of tyrannies and tyrants only. 

6. Because the measure proposed to be forced 
through the House within less than two days' con- 
sideration, is one which deeply afftc.s the integrity 
of the Constitution and ths liberties of the people; 
and to pass it with haste, and without due delibera- 
tion, would evince a contemptuous disregard of 
either, and may be a fatal violation of bt th. 



•H 



LBJL'05 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




Ip^i 




